search for: isparallelloop

On 01/28/2013 06:45 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > I am okay with this patch, assuming that you follow the review of Tobias > and Renato and provide a separate patch for the min-iter-count and a few > test cases. OK. Any opinions on the location of the isParallelLoop() check? Shall I put it to Loop so it is more widely accessible? I.e. Loop->isParallel(). -- Pekka

...eläinen wrote: > On 01/28/2013 06:45 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: >> I am okay with this patch, assuming that you follow the review of Tobias >> and Renato and provide a separate patch for the min-iter-count and a few >> test cases. > > OK. Any opinions on the location of the isParallelLoop() check? Shall I > put it to Loop so it is more widely accessible? I.e. Loop->isParallel(). > > -- > Pekka > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.ed...

Hi Pekka, I am okay with this patch, assuming that you follow the review of Tobias and Renato and provide a separate patch for the min-iter-count and a few test cases. I think that it would be a good idea to start a new thread and to discuss the best way to annotate loops in LLVM. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 28, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: >

Hi Renato, On 01/28/2013 03:22 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > This seems an awfully specific check on a generic part of the code... If True. Perhaps the check is better encapsulated, e.g., in the Loop class? Or, if there's such thing as a loop-carried data dependency analyzer, the correct place could be there, as a trivial "no deps" analysis. > this metadata standard in any